Canadian Urban Canyons

[Rico Rommheim]

N-D is my favourite canyon in Canada, period. It will be that much better once the Victoria and BNC towers (200m) both rise up.

[someone123]

This picture only captures part of the canyon-like stretch but here's Hollis Street in Halifax:


Source

[speedog]

Calgary 5th Avenue SW looking east with permission from and taken be Reddit user alternatethinking...

[someone123]

Sackville Street, Halifax


Source

[isaidso]

Nice vista although my eye is immediately drawn to that ghastly 4 floor brick residential.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Nice vista although my eye is immediately drawn to that ghastly 4 floor brick residential.

It is not a great building although it seemed only mildly worse than average back when it was built, maybe in 2006 or so. This area has completely changed over the past couple of years. When the building was approved nobody would have predicted that a decade later it would be surrounded by glass towers.

It's actually 7 floors on the Argyle side due to the steep hill. It also has weirdly short floor heights because it is under a height restriction and the developer tried to pack as much square footage in as possible.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is not a great building although it seemed only mildly worse than average back when it was built, maybe in 2006 or so. This area has completely changed over the past couple of years. When the building was approved nobody would have predicted that a decade later it would be surrounded by glass towers.

It's actually 7 floors on the Argyle side due to the steep hill. It also has weirdly short floor heights because it is under a height restriction and the developer tried to pack as much square footage in as possible.

It's a common theme that Canadian cities build sub par buildings arguing that it's good enough. It speaks to the culture; Canadians have never been very sophisticated when it comes to design. Can you imagine a French city of 400,000 building that in their downtown? I doubt they'd even contemplate it in some poor neighbourhood on the outskirts. Can you even buy ugly brick like that in France? It's hideous.

The boom in downtown Halifax was unforeseen but that's not what's at play here. We're just awful at this for the most part. We put vinyl siding on our houses, install concrete sidewalks, buy ugly recliners with beer cup holders in them, put up insanely tacky Christmas decorations, and it just goes on and on in every corner of our society. One only has to compare Nuuk, Greenland to Yellowknife to see the stark difference in design standards between Canada and Europe. (I know Greenland is technically North America but it's Danish design.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Can you imagine a French city of 400,000 building that in their downtown? I doubt they'd even contemplate it in some poor neighbourhood on the outskirts. Can you even buy ugly brick like that in France? It's hideous.

When this was proposed there were barely even any renderings of the buildings produced, and the cladding was described as "brick and sandstone". The developer-funded city councillors that voted in favour of it basically thought it would look the same as the historic brick and stone buildings in the area, or thought that the design was equivalent. They were not really literate at all in terms of architecture or urban design.

In those days the planning rules were the same as in 1980 and they mostly dealt with quantitative aspects of the development like building height, square footage, and of course parking. The rules were put in place to keep population densities low (the idea was that this would avoid slums) and to ensure that traffic and parking worked well (everybody will get around by car, even downtown). There was nothing in the planning rules that ensured that buildings would look good and many of the rules were actively harmful.

Since then the planning rules have changed somewhat. A bunch of the 70's-era parking/density stuff is gone and there are some more requirements in terms of design and materials (rules like "thou shalt not use vinyl siding"). There is also a design review committee, and the approval process is normally handled by the bureaucracy instead of politicians (if you follow the rules you get approved). It is still far from perfect but the quality has gone way up and lots of new buildings are quite nice.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It's a common theme that Canadian cities build sub par buildings arguing that it's good enough. It speaks to the culture; Canadians have never been very sophisticated when it comes to design. Can you imagine a French city of 400,000 building that in their downtown? I doubt they'd even contemplate it in some poor neighbourhood on the outskirts. Can you even buy ugly brick like that in France? It's hideous.

The boom in downtown Halifax was unforeseen but that's not what's at play here. We're just awful at this for the most part. We put vinyl siding on our houses, install concrete sidewalks, buy ugly recliners with beer cup holders in them, put up insanely tacky Christmas decorations, and it just goes on and on in every corner of our society. One only has to compare Nuuk, Greenland to Yellowknife to see the stark difference in design standards between Canada and Europe. (I know Greenland is technically North America but it's Danish design.)

Ghastly? I honestly don't see what's even wrong with it. It may not be an exceptional landmark-quality masterpiece, but it seems nice enough to me. Then again, it's hard to get worked up about a normal looking building like that given what's across the street. Now that I really can get worked up over.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Ghastly? I honestly don't see what's even wrong with it. It may not be an exceptional landmark-quality masterpiece, but it seems nice enough to me.

That you don't see anything wrong with it speaks to my previous point.

[milomilo]

Yeah, that brick building is fine, and there is plenty of crap built in Europe too. For example, I just plopped down on the first street I could find in Nice, and it is this:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.69281...7i13312!8i6656

It all looks fairly new, and none of it is particularly nice (no pun intended). But I'm sure it's a fine place to live.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah, that brick building is fine, and there is plenty of crap built in Europe too. For example, I just plopped down on the first street I could find in Nice, and it is this:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.69281...7i13312!8i6656

It all looks fairly new, and none of it is particularly nice (no pun intended). But I'm sure it's a fine place to live.

Almost none of that looks new. The newest buildings visible here are probably from the 60s or 70s, and aside from the colours (the south of France has a climate that keeps concrete shiny for decades, instead of getting dirty and grey like in Halifax) they aren't that much better than what was getting built in Canada at the time.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Almost none of that looks new. The newest buildings visible here are probably from the 60s or 70s, and aside from the colours (the south of France has a climate that keeps concrete shiny for decades, instead of getting dirty and grey like in Halifax) they aren't that much better than what was getting built in Canada at the time.

This is my point. I'm not one to defend poor buildings, but there is plenty of dross built in Europe too.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is my point. I'm not one to defend poor buildings, but there is plenty of dross built in Europe too.

Yeah, I feel that Europe (especially contemporary) is often way over romanticized on this forum.

Been to most countries in Europe, and every city I was in had a healthy mix of plain and downright ugly urban spaces among the charming postcard streets / structures.

Lots of minimalistic structures (especially in Northern Europe) and newer housing projects that looked as if they were prefabricate. Also lots of ugly as sin commie blocks.

Nuuk doesn’t look any better than Yellowknife to me (on a whole, it has a few aspects that are nicer, but on the flip side Yellowknife actually looks grander to me). It is just different styles.

Japan and Asia can be over romanticized this way too. Tourists see all the cute shrines, grand castles, ancient temples, soaring landmark towers, but they overlook / don’t see the cheap track housing, the big box stores, and the ugly seas of cookie cutter towers that make Yaletown look fantastic in design.

[Nouvellecosse]

Unless I'm mis-interpreting you, your point was that Canadians accept poor design as being good enough since they have low standards. I don't think it's poor but tolerable design, I think it's nice. In other words, I'm not "settling" for something because I don't think architecture has to be very good to be acceptable, I just have a different opinion/taste than you.

You seem to be insinuating that it's objectively bad design, but the only thing you've cited as justification is that you don't like the colour of the bricks.

[Doady]

Cities are comprised of diverse range of buildings from many different designs and styles and materials. The idea that one brick building, that almost completely hidden in a sea of steel and glass structures, is somehow representative of the buildings in that photo or all of Halifax or even all of Canada, is just completely nonsensical.

[kool maudit]

When I look at new construction here I do not find it appreciably nicer that what you might see in major Canadian cities. It is true, however, that Danish builders do not go as low as Canadian ones do; you would never see something like this, for instance:



But when you look at the greenfield areas of Copenhagen, they don't look that outstanding to me. Nordhavn is a new area built over former port lands, similar to CityPlace/SouthCore:



Consistent, but truly nothing special. Canada can and does exceed this not infrequently.

Sydhavn is similar:



It has an orderliness to it, but you can find this in Griffintown et cetera. It's nothing too exciting.

Malmo's western harbour is a bit better in terms of planning but the individual buildings are nothing special:



There is a bit of a gap in terms of things like street furniture, bike lanes, and the like, admittedly. But the Scandinavian countries are also richer places than Canada, with per capita GDP almost US $10,000 higher in Denmark than Canada.

[kool maudit]

I am more excited about some of the new projects in Toronto, particularly the 'bubble' one on King West, than I am about anything here.

[Acajack]

Some are better than others, but one thing I find about North American cities is that vehicular infrastructure (signage, signals, markings, etc.) is often over-bearing and garish even in denser inner city areas. In many cases you have the exact same stuff they use for 6-8 lane suburban boulevards lined with strip malls and auto dealerships, which they squeeze as best they can into dense inner city settings.

In most of Europe things are more harmonious and the insertion of the vehicular component to an inner city street is often more discreet and even secondary.

In North America too often a street is still seen as primarily for motor vehicles and the presence of other users is tolerated. In Europe it's the other way
around.

I will add a few caveats:

- Cities north of the Baltics often have some North American-ish traits to how motor vehicles are "welcomed" in their downtowns, but it's still usually not as over-bearing.

- In the more enlightened North American cities major efforts have been made in order to foster a more harmonious coexistence but these are often in conflict with evolving safety standards - especially those that take into account an ageing motorist population.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Some are better than others, but one thing I find about North American cities is that vehicular infrastructure (signage, signals, markings, etc.) is often over-bearing and garish even in denser inner city areas. In many cases you have the exact same stuff they use for 6-8 lane suburban boulevards lined with strip malls and auto dealerships, which they squeeze as best they can into dense inner city settings.

That's a very good observation, and one that I'd agree with.

Ironically, the one area where it would benefit to have large eye-catching signage readable to a passing motorist - directional signs to destinations - is where North America does a very poor job.

Consider how directional signage for motorists in an urban environment in Europe is often superior to one found in an exurban environment in North America.